This amazes me. You assume this is about fear of guns. I suspect you are really the one afraid, afraid that somehow a discussion of appropriate or inappropriate places for guns will infringe on the right to bear arms. This is where so many go wrong in their advocacy of the right to bear arms...they forget their own major talking point that with any right comes responsibility.

I am not letting you walk away from your earlier statements. You have taken my concerns to suggest taking guns away from cops, a position I never took. Why did you jump to such a foolish conclusion? Why jump off in a non sequiter when I expressed concern? All I can assume is that you interpreat ANY concern about guns as an attack on all guns. A kind of "if you're not for us your against us" arguement.

And then there is the lockstep phrase you and all others who jumped in to comment within minutes of eachother: inanimate object. You call a gun an inanimate object. An accurate description. So is a nuclear warhead. A nuke, of course, has far more effective safety devices on it than a gun. And boy are people going to be walking on egg shells if a nuke is around, right? So why not install a nuke in each toy store. It's just an inanimate object...and one with really, really effective safety mechanisms, so all is well, right?

You know, a crack pipe is just an inanimate object. So is a syringe. So why not have them strewn all over the place?

You try to divorce the purpose of an object from that object. A gun is desiged to deliver a high velocity object into a target. What is the purpose of having this in a play area? That is the question you fail to address in a sane manner. What is the purpose of bringing in a device specifically designed to deliver a high velocity objecy into a target into a play area? Given any risk vs. benefit analysis, how is bringing a deadly weapon into a play area going to give a benefit that outweighs the risk? Why is it there?

If you want a deterrent to shoplifting, put a security guard in place, not a taxpayer funded, armed cop. The idea of putting an armed cop into a play area to deter shoplifting is absurd.

And now what are you doing? You are arguing for an armed cop standing at each and every spot people frequent just in case a maniac is around. And yet that had nothing to do with why the cop was there. Nothing what so ever. Are you willing to pay the tax money to put that many cops on the street to patrol every store, every block 24 hours a day just in case a maniac is there? Well, why not just have the army patrol the streets. A tank on each street corner. Wouldn't that help deter crime?

Now, all you are doing is justifying the anti-gun stand that gun advocates have no sense of responsibility and proportion. Gun advocates always talk about the responsibilities that go along with rights, but when push comes to shove, they forget those very responsibilities. There are appropriate and inappropriate situations for guns. There are responsibile and irresponsible uses for guns. That is lesson one the NRA delivers regarding gun safety. Yet you advocate the presence of a gun at all times in all places just in case a maniac is around. That abandons all sense of appropriate and inappropriate situations and responsible and irresponsibe uses of guns. When I ask why a gun is needed in a play area you give a hysterical fear that maniacs are all over so we need armed guards patrolling everywhere at every moment of our lives. That's silly! That is nothing but hysterical paranoia and a demand to increase taxes to pay for all that added firepower on the streets.

A gun was brought into a play area in a safe neighborhood with the express purpose of deterring shoplifting. That is the situation. Not any of the hysterical scenarios you present. Once again, I ask you: why do you need a gun in a play area to deter children from shoplifting? Shall we put an armed cop in every kindergarten and day care to enforce nap time? Get real!